When his assumption is true, than Germany is a strange country. While South Germany was in past centuries poor now it is richer and now the north is poorer. As the different German dialects do have different vocabulary and grammar, there must have been a big change between in language. However, that is not true.
I would rather accept an argument, that culture and religion (which is a part of culture and reflects and influences culture) have a big impact on the behavior and the relationship towards goods, money and social security. For example, the health in continental European countries especially former west European countries is better than in the US as these countries have a general health-care system and the countries are relatively wealthy. While the US does not have such an health-care system (even though US-citizens pay more than twice as much as European citizens the US does not have healthcare for everyone). Other English spoken countries like India or South Africa (yes they have other languages beside English) are not that wealthy for known historical reasons.
Private donors are only necessary in societes where the state or other public institutions cannot handle the task (alone). This concepts is well suited for the US and to some extend for the UK, but from my continental European view, this is state business. The term state has a different conotation in Europe. It is the primary organisation of all people. It was founded to guarantee some services (education, research, safety, cultural development, social wellfare etc.) independent from the will of some donors, because they are unreliable (in our cultures).
Obviously it is not common in Japanese culture to do such big donations. Most likely their society and culture works different from the US/UK culture. This hardly classifies as a problem. Honestly, they have most likely other ways to finance education and science. And when I look at their industry and how good they are with their products, well I guess their system works.
BTW: I do not want a totally US-ified world. It is great to be different.
While he has no chance in topping Kim Jong Un, the Iranian president or Assad presently president of Syria, he has high hopes of becoming the most hated person of the week. It is like telling everybody you threw the shit in the fan.
They already tried the "save the children" thing. They failed. They have been caught. In Germany the government and parliament even submitted an act for web filtering. The commerical TV launched a campain to support the "save the children" topic with a "hunt the child abuser" show. Well the show was fake. And the law was never executed, due to massive public protests. Recently the made a new act which revoked the old one.
They over used children and terrorists. But maybe they come up with something new. The environment, traffic/cars or taxes could be good topics;-)
The EU is not showing some backbone. Poland and Czech are showing some backbone. Especially for Poland this is new. It must be related to Donald Tusk who looks like someone with a brain and ethics which is very seldom in politicians. Not to forget he is a conservative (by European standards).
You are implying that French courts are not independent. This is definitely not true. Second you think Airbus is a French company. This is only partial true. They are at least a French, English, German company. And finally while the EU is protecting Airbus, they do this with permission to WTO as the US protecting Boeing and other US based companies. The US subsidizes their industry mainly through overpriced military products and research, while Europeans us other subsidies.
Companies should be forced to sell their services for at the amount of money they need to provide it. While the Google search engine could be free for searches it has has to cost for the advertisers (which it does). However, with the same logic the map service could be free for watchers if other people have to pay for their location. For email it is you data you provide (pay) so that should not be a problem.
I agree. However, the sketched "process" is hardly complete. And I would not recommend it. Even though it is better than on process at all. Things I left out: Evaluate technologies so they can match the "high level goals". This can be done with prototyping, reading etc.
Also you should look into test driven development, model driven development, etc. The important thing here was the question "How to become an engineer?" And the short answer is: Use engineering methods to guid your creativity.
BTW We used the watefall model in a under grad project. It worked well, but the requirements were fix and pre tested by our lecturers so there were no suprises. In a grad student project we used RUP including prototyping/tech evaluation, and we had to determine the requirements ourselves. It worked well, but only because we could throw away the prototypes and nobody was pushing us to reduce cost.
In the real world things are a little different. You do not know all requirements and they change constantly (in most cases slowly, but constantly). You have to cooperate with people in other companies and they might not be available for the project full time, so you have to do a lot of time management, which makes things more complicated than knowing half a year in advance how the time budget looks like. A yes and in the real world there are developers which are not really good at coding and which are not really good at documenting or designing, but you cannot fire them, as there are no replacements available. At least that's how it is in Germany.
There are different ways to become an engineer. First, the hard way. You code somthing up and then you aren't able to maintain it sufficiently. In the end you have to rewrite. When you do that cycle often enough or have seen rotten code of others often enough, then you should normally be able to make the transition. The first thing you can focus on at that point are methods and procedures. All that shit that hackers call a limit to their freedom. Today agile approaches are very popular, but they require a lot of discipline and they are merely improved old methods. The old method to learn is V-model or RUP or even the old "requirements -> design -> detailed design -> code"-method. For agile methods you have to learn that you have to iterate these processes and that you always start with a requirement cutting it into pieces called features and then add something to you design.
Second, you could have it easy and start reading and implementing engineering methods in your job. In this version you just believe that it hurts not to do so, which leads normally to less motivation.
But the main lesson is, learn and use the methods of software engineering. With time you will learn to use them wisely. And yes you should have heard software engineering classes in grad school, but you can still learn all that stuff. The big picture is not too complicated. Complicated things arise on the road.
When I have to buy a new phone, then I can make a choice. I can either buy an Apple product or I can buy (hopefully) a product which is more sustainable manufactured. And when I choose the latter, it will effect Apples decisions to start to produce more sustainable as well. And BTW producing products with cheap labor has negative economical effects. However, you do nat have to pay for them now and so it looks cheap. Have a look at externalizing cost. Externalized cost has always to be payed. And normally it is payed by the public.
A corporation promises to do something. That is what the CEO said. I will believe them (as much as I will believe Samsung) when they actually do it. If I see that they are changing their ways, I will admit that. But as long as they are only talking, I do not believe them. Why should I?
BTW: Same applies to Samsung or HTC or any other company selling devices.
Ah so you state that people are not totally consitent in their behavior. While they have accepted that corporations are not working in the public interest (at least their motivation is not the public interest, but their own pockets), they are still bound by their desires and wishes and they live out their projections. This is definitely true. but it is true for all of us. Some people even do not accept simple facts, like we have an energy consuption and a resource consumption problem. And we have to change our way or it will become problematic to have such thing as our present society.
The real thing is, we have to change (not the others, if we wait for them, they will wait for us). Meaning I have to change how I live. And you should change how you live. And doing these changes are hard. And yes we should thin twice buying anything from Apple again as long they have that production agenda and they have their locked plattforms. However, it might be complicated, because Samsung, HTC and others manufacture their devices i nthe same or similar shops.
The best thing to do, do not buy a new phone unless the old is broken. And if possible, replace the battery if you can instead of throwing the thing away.
The good thing about that occupy movement (as far as I can see it from over here), they might be open to arguments. Therefor, they might understand the arguments againts Apple.
First, most people here do not life in the USA and several European countries. Then the subject is very wide. And finally what is better? You could evaluate the quality of journalism. Or the quality of the production or the selection of topics. And just because a lot of magazines migrate to applets does not mean that there are less of those magazins. Furthermore, many topics of magazines became obsolete, as the communities they lifed of and they supported moved on and are now selforganized in some way via the net.
I did not say the US citizens are conservative or even right wing christian fundamentalists (as some might think). I pointed out that the media landscape in the US does not have liberal media (at least not among the big players). There are conservative media corporations (e.g. Murdochs News Corp), there are new liberal media companies. And you might be right that the US (as measured by state policy) is a moderate country between dictatorships and democratic welfare states. but liberal is not a relative term. For example, a moderate nationalist becomes not a liberal just because all other people around him start to become fascists.
All of the people on the list do not know anything on climate. At least not more than any other person. They have not done research in the area for decades. I wonder why the "climate change is a lie"-idea is so famous in the US, while all others on the globe accept the results?
The WSJ is a Murdoch-Paper focused on economics. While they might be biased on economics too, it is at least their topic. Earth sciences is definitely not their topic. Honestly, why is that news at all? It is the typical FUD from that side.
Apple did not much develop the iPhone hardware, nor did they develop the manucatoring process. The components come from all over the place, but mainly from Taiwan and South Korea. What they did, they compile the stuff. They failed with the antenna development, which they did themselves. They developed the software at least I do not know how much of the development was done abroad.
The development of the assembly process was not done alone (when done at all by Apple) as the manucatoring is done by Foxxcon.
The beauty of the idea is, that you do not need any money, you just use all the US debt certificates and stack them. That should be enough to reach the moon and build there a station out of the remaining notes. And if it isn't sufficient. New debt can easily be produced. For example, wage another war. Let say against Pakistan. Er no they have the bomb. Well let see, how about Norway. They have oil and they do not have any nuclear weapons. True they are allies, but who cares? Who will stop us? The British will not, if BP can get some of the oil.
The selected group of people are office people working for the administration. Therefore, they have not to learn new subjects on a daily basis (just other rules, even though they do not have to understand them, it is even recommended that they do not understand them (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureaucracy by Max Weber)).
If you read the study (I know, nodbody does that), you could see that the test basis are office personell in administration. Compared to students and people working knowledge intesive areas, they do not have to learn that much new facts every day. As other studies (use google if you want) have shown, cognitive skills decline when you reduce the learning. In a German study they have shown that the decline starts earlier in people who left school with 16 and hand a job since then compared to academic personell or researcher who have to learn new stuff every day. The latter group hand only minimal decline in cognitive skills (much less than those shown in the study mentioned above for a 10 year period).
Why should they do something. Such patents are the only thing US companies have to fight on international markets. All beside the design of the iPhone comes from South Korea, China, Japan, or Taiwan. The display and the video processor is from Samsung or LG, the A5 is an ARM-based design manufactured by Samsung, the touchscreen is from Balda AG a German company which produces in China (so the manufacturing skill are in Chinese hands), Bluetooth comes from the UK, the Baseband IC comes from Infineon, etc. Apple only provides design and the software. And most of the hardware comes from outside the US. Dominantly from Taiwan, but also from South Korea, Japan, and Germany. If the US would let go of the patent system, they would lose more ground. as they already lost production skills to Taiwan and China, and they lost development skills to Taiwan. The remaining US parts are WiFi-chip, touch-control chip, CMOS and flash IC, which are also available from non-US companies. The US has first to start to be innovative again, before it will be beneficiary to let go of such rigid patent system. Or they have to fool around a little longer, so they are overtaken on all fields by Asia and then drop the patent thing, as the US has to pay.
Slashdot Mirror
When his assumption is true, than Germany is a strange country. While South Germany was in past centuries poor now it is richer and now the north is poorer. As the different German dialects do have different vocabulary and grammar, there must have been a big change between in language. However, that is not true.
I would rather accept an argument, that culture and religion (which is a part of culture and reflects and influences culture) have a big impact on the behavior and the relationship towards goods, money and social security. For example, the health in continental European countries especially former west European countries is better than in the US as these countries have a general health-care system and the countries are relatively wealthy. While the US does not have such an health-care system (even though US-citizens pay more than twice as much as European citizens the US does not have healthcare for everyone). Other English spoken countries like India or South Africa (yes they have other languages beside English) are not that wealthy for known historical reasons.
Private donors are only necessary in societes where the state or other public institutions cannot handle the task (alone). This concepts is well suited for the US and to some extend for the UK, but from my continental European view, this is state business. The term state has a different conotation in Europe. It is the primary organisation of all people. It was founded to guarantee some services (education, research, safety, cultural development, social wellfare etc.) independent from the will of some donors, because they are unreliable (in our cultures).
Obviously it is not common in Japanese culture to do such big donations. Most likely their society and culture works different from the US/UK culture. This hardly classifies as a problem. Honestly, they have most likely other ways to finance education and science. And when I look at their industry and how good they are with their products, well I guess their system works.
BTW: I do not want a totally US-ified world. It is great to be different.
The Internet is not hypermedia. Hypermedia is an application using the Internet.
While he has no chance in topping Kim Jong Un, the Iranian president or Assad presently president of Syria, he has high hopes of becoming the most hated person of the week. It is like telling everybody you threw the shit in the fan.
Now he could invent the sue for internet sueing.
They already tried the "save the children" thing. They failed. They have been caught. In Germany the government and parliament even submitted an act for web filtering. The commerical TV launched a campain to support the "save the children" topic with a "hunt the child abuser" show. Well the show was fake. And the law was never executed, due to massive public protests. Recently the made a new act which revoked the old one.
They over used children and terrorists. But maybe they come up with something new. The environment, traffic/cars or taxes could be good topics ;-)
The EU is not showing some backbone. Poland and Czech are showing some backbone. Especially for Poland this is new. It must be related to Donald Tusk who looks like someone with a brain and ethics which is very seldom in politicians. Not to forget he is a conservative (by European standards).
Thanks for that from Germany.
You are implying that French courts are not independent. This is definitely not true. Second you think Airbus is a French company. This is only partial true. They are at least a French, English, German company. And finally while the EU is protecting Airbus, they do this with permission to WTO as the US protecting Boeing and other US based companies. The US subsidizes their industry mainly through overpriced military products and research, while Europeans us other subsidies.
Companies should be forced to sell their services for at the amount of money they need to provide it. While the Google search engine could be free for searches it has has to cost for the advertisers (which it does). However, with the same logic the map service could be free for watchers if other people have to pay for their location. For email it is you data you provide (pay) so that should not be a problem.
I agree. However, the sketched "process" is hardly complete. And I would not recommend it. Even though it is better than on process at all. Things I left out: Evaluate technologies so they can match the "high level goals". This can be done with prototyping, reading etc.
Also you should look into test driven development, model driven development, etc. The important thing here was the question "How to become an engineer?" And the short answer is: Use engineering methods to guid your creativity.
BTW We used the watefall model in a under grad project. It worked well, but the requirements were fix and pre tested by our lecturers so there were no suprises. In a grad student project we used RUP including prototyping/tech evaluation, and we had to determine the requirements ourselves. It worked well, but only because we could throw away the prototypes and nobody was pushing us to reduce cost.
In the real world things are a little different. You do not know all requirements and they change constantly (in most cases slowly, but constantly). You have to cooperate with people in other companies and they might not be available for the project full time, so you have to do a lot of time management, which makes things more complicated than knowing half a year in advance how the time budget looks like. A yes and in the real world there are developers which are not really good at coding and which are not really good at documenting or designing, but you cannot fire them, as there are no replacements available. At least that's how it is in Germany.
There are different ways to become an engineer. First, the hard way. You code somthing up and then you aren't able to maintain it sufficiently. In the end you have to rewrite. When you do that cycle often enough or have seen rotten code of others often enough, then you should normally be able to make the transition. The first thing you can focus on at that point are methods and procedures. All that shit that hackers call a limit to their freedom. Today agile approaches are very popular, but they require a lot of discipline and they are merely improved old methods. The old method to learn is V-model or RUP or even the old "requirements -> design -> detailed design -> code"-method. For agile methods you have to learn that you have to iterate these processes and that you always start with a requirement cutting it into pieces called features and then add something to you design.
Second, you could have it easy and start reading and implementing engineering methods in your job. In this version you just believe that it hurts not to do so, which leads normally to less motivation.
But the main lesson is, learn and use the methods of software engineering. With time you will learn to use them wisely. And yes you should have heard software engineering classes in grad school, but you can still learn all that stuff. The big picture is not too complicated. Complicated things arise on the road.
When I have to buy a new phone, then I can make a choice. I can either buy an Apple product or I can buy (hopefully) a product which is more sustainable manufactured. And when I choose the latter, it will effect Apples decisions to start to produce more sustainable as well. And BTW producing products with cheap labor has negative economical effects. However, you do nat have to pay for them now and so it looks cheap. Have a look at externalizing cost. Externalized cost has always to be payed. And normally it is payed by the public.
If that's so, my next phone might be a HTC.
A corporation promises to do something. That is what the CEO said. I will believe them (as much as I will believe Samsung) when they actually do it. If I see that they are changing their ways, I will admit that. But as long as they are only talking, I do not believe them. Why should I?
BTW: Same applies to Samsung or HTC or any other company selling devices.
Ah so you state that people are not totally consitent in their behavior. While they have accepted that corporations are not working in the public interest (at least their motivation is not the public interest, but their own pockets), they are still bound by their desires and wishes and they live out their projections. This is definitely true. but it is true for all of us. Some people even do not accept simple facts, like we have an energy consuption and a resource consumption problem. And we have to change our way or it will become problematic to have such thing as our present society.
The real thing is, we have to change (not the others, if we wait for them, they will wait for us). Meaning I have to change how I live. And you should change how you live. And doing these changes are hard. And yes we should thin twice buying anything from Apple again as long they have that production agenda and they have their locked plattforms. However, it might be complicated, because Samsung, HTC and others manufacture their devices i nthe same or similar shops.
The best thing to do, do not buy a new phone unless the old is broken. And if possible, replace the battery if you can instead of throwing the thing away.
The good thing about that occupy movement (as far as I can see it from over here), they might be open to arguments. Therefor, they might understand the arguments againts Apple.
First, most people here do not life in the USA and several European countries. Then the subject is very wide. And finally what is better? You could evaluate the quality of journalism. Or the quality of the production or the selection of topics. And just because a lot of magazines migrate to applets does not mean that there are less of those magazins. Furthermore, many topics of magazines became obsolete, as the communities they lifed of and they supported moved on and are now selforganized in some way via the net.
I did not say the US citizens are conservative or even right wing christian fundamentalists (as some might think). I pointed out that the media landscape in the US does not have liberal media (at least not among the big players). There are conservative media corporations (e.g. Murdochs News Corp), there are new liberal media companies. And you might be right that the US (as measured by state policy) is a moderate country between dictatorships and democratic welfare states. but liberal is not a relative term. For example, a moderate nationalist becomes not a liberal just because all other people around him start to become fascists.
There is no such thing as liberal media in the US.
All of the people on the list do not know anything on climate. At least not more than any other person. They have not done research in the area for decades. I wonder why the "climate change is a lie"-idea is so famous in the US, while all others on the globe accept the results?
The WSJ is a Murdoch-Paper focused on economics. While they might be biased on economics too, it is at least their topic. Earth sciences is definitely not their topic. Honestly, why is that news at all? It is the typical FUD from that side.
Apple did not much develop the iPhone hardware, nor did they develop the manucatoring process. The components come from all over the place, but mainly from Taiwan and South Korea. What they did, they compile the stuff. They failed with the antenna development, which they did themselves. They developed the software at least I do not know how much of the development was done abroad.
The development of the assembly process was not done alone (when done at all by Apple) as the manucatoring is done by Foxxcon.
The beauty of the idea is, that you do not need any money, you just use all the US debt certificates and stack them. That should be enough to reach the moon and build there a station out of the remaining notes. And if it isn't sufficient. New debt can easily be produced. For example, wage another war. Let say against Pakistan. Er no they have the bomb. Well let see, how about Norway. They have oil and they do not have any nuclear weapons. True they are allies, but who cares? Who will stop us? The British will not, if BP can get some of the oil.
The selected group of people are office people working for the administration. Therefore, they have not to learn new subjects on a daily basis (just other rules, even though they do not have to understand them, it is even recommended that they do not understand them (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureaucracy by Max Weber)).
If you read the study (I know, nodbody does that), you could see that the test basis are office personell in administration. Compared to students and people working knowledge intesive areas, they do not have to learn that much new facts every day. As other studies (use google if you want) have shown, cognitive skills decline when you reduce the learning. In a German study they have shown that the decline starts earlier in people who left school with 16 and hand a job since then compared to academic personell or researcher who have to learn new stuff every day. The latter group hand only minimal decline in cognitive skills (much less than those shown in the study mentioned above for a 10 year period).
Why should they do something. Such patents are the only thing US companies have to fight on international markets. All beside the design of the iPhone comes from South Korea, China, Japan, or Taiwan. The display and the video processor is from Samsung or LG, the A5 is an ARM-based design manufactured by Samsung, the touchscreen is from Balda AG a German company which produces in China (so the manufacturing skill are in Chinese hands), Bluetooth comes from the UK, the Baseband IC comes from Infineon, etc. Apple only provides design and the software. And most of the hardware comes from outside the US. Dominantly from Taiwan, but also from South Korea, Japan, and Germany. If the US would let go of the patent system, they would lose more ground. as they already lost production skills to Taiwan and China, and they lost development skills to Taiwan. The remaining US parts are WiFi-chip, touch-control chip, CMOS and flash IC, which are also available from non-US companies. The US has first to start to be innovative again, before it will be beneficiary to let go of such rigid patent system. Or they have to fool around a little longer, so they are overtaken on all fields by Asia and then drop the patent thing, as the US has to pay.